send_mouse_move

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's immediate or queued, what happens if coordinates are out of bounds, if it affects other UI elements, or any side effects. For a system interaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a system interaction tool (mouse movement) with no annotations, no output schema, and siblings that suggest a UI automation context (Scenic), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address prerequisites, coordinate system, behavioral constraints, or what success/failure looks like, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (x and y) clearly documented in the schema as coordinates. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., coordinate system origin, units, or valid ranges). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Move') and resource ('mouse cursor') with the specific action ('to specific coordinates'). It distinguishes from siblings like send_mouse_click (clicking vs moving) and send_keys (keyboard input). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential mouse movement tools that might exist in other contexts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to connect to Scenic first using connect_scenic), when mouse movement is appropriate versus other input methods, or any constraints on coordinate ranges or system state.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.